The blackmagic pocket cinema camera. 30FPS DNG RAW at HD resolution

[zwarte_kat]

This is going to be an oddball, but very interesting:

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera

In short:

About as big as a Sony Nex, but with Micro 4/3 mount.

Sensor is even smaller than MF 4/3. Like 1.4 times smaller. Crop is 3.0 compared with full frame.

It's a video camera that shoots in HD, but it can shoot at 30FPS, In Raw DNG images.

HQ sound, though you'd need to connect a pre-amp plus decent mic.

13 stops of dynamic range, which is incredible for the size and price point.

So it's very low res, it doesn't do that well in low light, no autofocus, and no still function (there is Time lapse). But you can export a still from a video that is pixel for pixel probably comparable to an M9 (no AI filter either).

If you shoot just for the web, this camera can provide videos and stills at the same time, without compromises in quality. It's $999.

I know most here will not be interested, but it is interesting to see where cameras are going. The announced bigger brother camera of this one can shoot at 4000 pixels wide. I believe that is between 12 and 16MP. It has a sensor at about APS-C size, and will cost $4000, still half of an M9P costs.

I have Blackmagic's current 2.5K cinema camera. The DNG files can be opened in lightroom and edited as any other Raw photograph. It is big and heavy though.

 

[DamenS]

"Pixel for pixel" the Leica M9 and Blackmagic MAY have similar picture quality - but when one has only 2 megapixels and the other has 18 megapixels doesn't the comparison seem somewhat ludicrous ?

 

[zwarte_kat]

No, because there is more to quality than pixel count. For the web 2 megapixels is fine, and the web is where most images go. Actually, The one I have now is 2.5K, it's hard to find a screen bigger than that.

I'd sooner worry about sensor size and focus mechanisms when comparing to the M9, though it has peaking.

Anyway, i am not saying it's better than an M9. It's a completely different product altogether. I was just trying to say that it is a new way of looking at photography/imaging in general. The new Canon 1D-C shoots 4K video resolution, though not in Raw. The interesting thing about the pocket cam is that it's relatively inexpensive, and small. It lies within the reach of consumers/hobbyists.

Perhaps I should have put this thread in philosophy of photography, in-between all the "does gear make you a better photographer or not?" threads.

 

[Harry Caul]

This is not meant for still photographers. It is a video camera first and foremost. I don't even think it has a shutter button -- just a record button!

That said, it looks pretty amazing if you are a videographer.

 

[zwarte_kat]

You are absolutely right. It does not shoot stills. And yet it continuously does.

You could shoot an event on video, and extract the photos while you edit.

It's interesting how these machines are fading together, only a little over 100 years after both arts started.

Of course, you could already do this with 35mm film!

 

[--]

Anyone having received the pocket camera? Would love to hear more about it in capable hands.

Cheers,
Xpanded

 

[Archiver]

I have one on order, although the Chinese whispers on the internet do not bode well for delivery times. It seems that initial deliveries will be small, with larger quantities coming in 3-4 weeks.

The only test footage I have seen is from John Brawley, and a fellow in Brisbane. And in the last 24 hours, someone posted some terrible handheld footage on YouTube. No idea if it is really BMPCC footage, but it looks like crap. I mean, seriously, he's put a Canon 24-70 on it and is waving it at his cat!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezRqYAeYzgg

Ugh!

I plan to use mine as part of a travel-size work setup. Canon body sizes are okay, it's the lenses that are the killers. Let's hope that one from the first shipment gets to me!

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I flirted with video for a few years, spending a substantial amount to prove that I wasn't actually very good at it 🙁

I did learn enough that I realise what a big deal this will be, if it lives up to the sales pitch. The price looks right, the ergonomics make sense and the use of the M43 mount is a very good idea.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...
That said, it looks pretty amazing if you are a videographer.

Not, really. For nearly the same price range you could get used 5D MKII, which will give you FF video, allows to have shallow DOF with classic glass and if you need so called "stills" 🙂 you could get them in much higher resolution.
Just not at the same time.

This camera has too small sensor to be suitable for videography. It just like any other advanced P&S with video, plus stills in higher resolution.

Might be interesting for low budged news gathering for media which needs both, video and still.
But it must have some audio capabilities for it, not just video.

 

[BLKRCAT]

5D MKII doesnt shoot c-log without some hacking with magic lantern. Also you are limited to 1080p. Black magic will give you 2.5k which when downrezed to 1080p will be sharper. And will give you your video in linear workspace so you have the most color information possible.

There aren't any DSLRs that shoot higher than 1080p to my knowledge other than the 1D C.

 

[--]

Let's hope that one from the first shipment gets to me!

Crossing fingers 🙂

Surprised to see that it supports AF as well.

Maybe it was the cat recording 😉

 

[Mephiloco]

I played with one recently and it's ok, depending on what you're doing and your budget. The dynamic range is nice, not the best I've seen but for the price point there's no competition, especially when you factor in raw (excluding a 5d mk3 shooting raw, for twice as much money).

I think it's silly to say that the sensor is 'too small to be suitable', it's completely usable. Realize that it's not completely made with the intent of having full frame glass mounted on it. It's a super 16 sensor; Super16 is still very viable and offers a tremendous value for the price.

Edit:
Oh, also, it's not that bad in low light, depending on how you define 'bad in low light'. At 3200 we had usable footage, not getting really nasty until an effective iso of 6400. 1600 is nice and not very different from 800